The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission has told the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory that the signatures of former President Muhammadu Buhari and former Secretary to the Government of the Federation Boss Mustapha were forged in a scheme that allegedly defrauded Nigeria of 6,230,000 dollars.
Testifying before the court, EFCC Assistant Commander II, Chinedu Eneanya, stated that five officials of the Central Bank of Nigeria facilitated the release of the funds under the pretext that the money was intended for foreign election observers during the 2023 general elections.
The testimony was presented during the resumed trial of former Central Bank Governor Godwin Emefiele, who is facing a 20 count charge filed by the Federal Government. The case, marked FCT HC CR 577 2023, includes allegations of criminal breach of trust, forgery, abuse of office, conspiracy to obtain by false pretence, and obtaining money by false pretence.
According to the prosecution, Emefiele allegedly secured 6,230,000 dollars under false pretence, claiming it was meant for international election observers. He is also accused of conferring corrupt advantages on two companies, April 1616 Nigeria Ltd and Architekon Nigeria Ltd. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Eneanya, who appeared as the 13th prosecution witness, informed the court that his team was assigned to investigate the matter. He said, “The investigation revealed that the money, 6.2 million dollars, was removed from the coffers of the CBN for a purported funding of foreign observers for the 2023 elections.”
He added that individuals connected to the transaction were interviewed and relevant documents were retrieved from the Central Bank. According to him, findings showed that the signatures of Buhari and Mustapha were forged to authorise the release of the funds. He noted that forensic analysis confirmed the signatures were not authentic.
During cross examination, counsel to Emefiele, Mathew Burkaa, highlighted that no forensic examination was conducted on Emefiele’s signature, despite his claim that it had also been forged. The witness acknowledged this point.
Eneanya further disclosed that five CBN officials signed the internal memo approving the release of the funds, but none of them is currently on trial alongside Emefiele, as they were only suspended by the bank.
He also clarified that he did not personally obtain Emefiele’s extra judicial statements. When asked whether investigations confirmed that Emefiele personally received any of the funds, Eneanya stated that Emefiele’s lawyer, Ifeanyi Omeke, claimed he received money on behalf of his client, though the witness admitted he did not question Emefiele directly on that claim.
Earlier in the proceedings, the defence objected to the introduction of another investigating officer, arguing that the testimony would duplicate earlier evidence. The defence also reminded the court that the prosecution had previously indicated it would call its final witness.
“We understand their strategy. It seems they are ridiculing the court. All the same, we are ready to go on,” the defence stated.
The defence subsequently applied for the foreclosure of the prosecution’s case after lead prosecution counsel, Rotimi Oyedepo, indicated uncertainty about producing two remaining witnesses on the next adjourned date. Oyedepo explained that the witnesses were outside the court’s jurisdiction in Benin and Lagos and that subpoenas were yet to be secured.
When asked by the court, Oyedepo confirmed that two additional witnesses remained, identified as Jim Obessa and CP Eloho Okpozikbo.
The court directed the prosecution to present all remaining witnesses between April 27 and April 28. In response, the defence insisted that failure to produce the witnesses should result in the closure of the prosecution’s case.
“If the witnesses do not come on April 28, we apply that they should be foreclosed. Justice is both for the prosecution and the defendant.
“This is an antic by the prosecution to put maximum hardship on the defendant. Please let it be on record that the prosecution has severally brought out this scenario,” the defence argued.
Oyedepo urged the court to reject the application, stating that the prosecution was committed to ensuring an expeditious trial and should not be shut out.
Presiding judge, Hamza Muazu, advised both parties to reserve their arguments for final addresses and directed the prosecution to obtain the necessary subpoenas from the court registrar.
The matter was adjourned to April 28 for continuation of trial.
